Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Should Firearm Silencers Be Legalized?
America's Debate > Policy Debate > Domestic Policy
Pages: 1, 2
Google
AuthorMusician
The story:

https://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-L...ed-to-Congress/

Why should firearm silencers be legalized for the general public?

Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?

Why might you buy a firearm silencer if they're legalized?
Google
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jan 15 2017, 09:04 AM) *
The story:

https://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-L...ed-to-Congress/

Why should firearm silencers be legalized for the general public?

Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?

Why might you buy a firearm silencer if they're legalized?


From HowStuffWorks.com

I'll answer the first and third questions here:

Apparently they (suppressors) are legal for the general public (see above link), but it requires a background check and there is a steep tax.

QUOTE
The gun industry is positioning silencers as a health issue. In fact, the bill that would eliminate the $200 tax and ATF background check for buying a silencer is called the Hearing Protection Act. There's no doubt that repeated short-range exposure to gun blasts will inflict lasting hearing damage. But why can't hunters and other sportsman simply wear ear plugs?

The American Suppressor Association argues that many hunters don't wear ear protection because they want to be aware of their surroundings. It's hard to hear the call of a migrating duck or the sound of a buck moving stealthily through the underbrush if you're wearing earplugs or noise-reducing earmuffs. With silencers, gun advocates argue, hunters don't have to sacrifice awareness for safety.

Another safety benefit touted by the silencer industry is accuracy. The anticipation of a loud blast causes some shooters to flinch as they pull the trigger. This may lead to inaccurate shots, which could endanger other hunters or result in an injury to the animal.


Just as an anecdote, I live very close to a hunting range and I'd love for the hunters to use silencers. Beats being awakened at five thirty every weekend morning during hunting season from the sound of the blasts.

Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?
According to Howstuffworks they aren't illegal. I'd guess they require a background check (just knowing how this kind of thing goes) because someone who didn't know that a silencer doesn't actually silence a gun saw a Hollywood movie or two that portrayed them inaccurately, said, "there outta be a law!"....and they told two friends, and so on, and so on....
lo rez


Why should firearm silencers be legalized for the general public?

Strike that. Reverse it. The default should be that an object or act is legal until sufficient reason is found to make that object or act illegal.

Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?

Most likely the same reason that they're commonly referred to as silencers rather than suppressors.

Why might you buy a firearm silencer if they're legalized?

To give to the jerk two lanes down who won't stop rapid firing his .50 desert eagle. I'm not sure it would be very effective but maybe it would calm my nerves a bit.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jan 15 2017, 09:31 AM) *
According to Howstuffworks they aren't illegal. I'd guess they require a background check (just knowing how this kind of thing goes) because someone who didn't know that a silencer doesn't actually silence a gun saw a Hollywood movie or two that portrayed them inaccurately, said, "there outta be a law!"....and they told two friends, and so on, and so on....

So are you maintaining that this law to make silencers/suppressors (same thing in the English language within this context) available to the general public is not needed, since if you can pass the tests for a permit and pay the fees, you get to use them?

Okay, I can understand that mode of thinking. It's like a law eliminating the need for a license to drive a car isn't needed because if you can pass the tests and pay the fees, you're free to operate one. It is technically legal to drive a car.

As for why sound suppressors for firearms, AKA silencers, were made illegal (using them without a permit being illegal), check out this from the linked article:

QUOTE
The legislation would remove silencers from the list of weapons banned for having "no common lawful purpose"
It's the subtitle of the article.

Can you think of a lawful purpose for using a firearm sound suppressor on a firearm, other than avoiding the annoying of people trying to sleep or have some peace-and-quite in their homes?

Around here the sound of really big guns around Fort Carson and the sound of really loud military jets and choppers is referred to as the sound of freedom. Don't like it? Use ear plugs, noise-canceling headsets, or move away.

I seriously doubt that your annoying hunters give a spit about the noise they make. If they did (and were real hunters), they'd take up archery and learn to shoot like this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk

Lars Anderson can shoot three arrows accurately and silently in 0.06 seconds, and he does this on the run. Amazing? Not in the ancient world. It was a common requirement for carrying a bow in the old militaries, before firearms rendered the skills obsolete.

Ah well, there's so much the modern world has forgotten due to technological developments.

This proposed law would make it so that any Tom, Dick or Mary can use a silencer on their firearm(s). I guess to not disturb the neighbors? Bull puckey, to help get away with murder. No more annoying calls to 911 bringing in police and thereby putting pressure on the murderer to flee right away, rather than taking the time to clean up the crime scene.

What a boon for terroists too -- can shoot lots more people in loud clubs before anyone knows why Tom, Dick and Mary fell to the floor, and the terrorists can then make their getaways without any messy standoffs. Perfect for them.

This is of course how I see it, AKA my opinion. However, Lars Anderson demonstrates why I and my oldest brother have contempt for firearm hunters. Very little skill is required to pop the game with those noisy, irritating semi-autos, and worse -- some can't tell the difference between the game and a human dressed in blaze orange duds. Bowhunters rule!
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jan 16 2017, 12:42 PM) *
Okay, I can understand that mode of thinking. It's like a law eliminating the need for a license to drive a car isn't needed because if you can pass the tests and pay the fees, you're free to operate one. It is technically legal to drive a car.


No. It'd like a law eliminating a tax on a feature that would make a car safer. Because there is no advantage, (and obvious disadvantage) to a sound that is so loud it causes hearing loss.

From the link I supplied above:

QUOTE
A silencer is a lot like the muffler on your car (in fact, both were invented by the same guy). Screwing a silencer onto the barrel of a gun doesn't "silence" the explosive bang, it just muffles the noise. That's why folks in the gun industry call them suppressors instead of silencers.

The decibel level of an un-suppressed 12-gauge shotgun is 160 decibels, louder than standing on the runway when a jet is taking off (150 decibels). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets 140 decibels as the threshold of pain, although it takes far less than 140 decibels to inflict long-term hearing damage with repeated exposure.

According to a fact sheet from SilencerCo, a Utah-based silencer manufacturer, a 12-gauge shotgun equipped with a silencer registers 137 decibels and a silenced .22 rifle is muffled to 116 decibels, slightly louder than an ambulance siren. Still loud, just not eardrum-busting loud.


Still slightly louder than an ambulance siren.
So, no, it would appear that suppressors don't enable terrorists/murderers/psychos to stack up bodies in silence and stealth. That is a Hollywood myth.
droop224
QUOTE(Mrs. P)
So, no, it would appear that suppressors don't enable terrorists/murderers/psychos to stack up bodies in silence and stealth. That is a Hollywood myth.
laugh.gif Sounds more like a gun enthusiast's straw man than a Hollywood myth.

Look, I could buy a box of Cheerios and put it in front of you and ask you "What's its purpose???" Now you could say "to me eaten" or "to nourish the body", but then I could take out some string and thread it through a pile of Cheerios and present you with a Cheerio Necklace (don't tell the hubby, our secret wub.gif ). But at the end of the day the fact that I used for a purpose other than eating, doesn't mean the intention in its creation is different.

First the purpose of a firearm is to kill or maim. It was made to be a weapon. A suppressor is made to do this in a more stealthy manner. So that's the "con":

Con for society:

1) Allowing suppressors allows one person in society to kill another in a more stealthy manner

Pro for society:

1) People who CHOOSE to shoot guns without proper ear protection could suffer hearing loss, but they wouldn't if they have a suppressor.

2) Those people that live by fire ranges will get more beauty sleep

So we all have seen how the proliferation of guns has increased the ease for illegal gun ownership... and now we want to compound that issue by making it easier and cheaper (more supply) for people to get suppressors?




akaCG
Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?
QUOTE
...
The first step in consideration of why suppressors might be removed
from the NFA involves a historical analysis of how they got
there in the first place. Get ready for a rendition of the insightful truism:
“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”
...
II. THE TORTUROUS HISTORY OF HOW NOISE SUPPRESSORS
CAME TO BE RESTRICTED

A review of the historical background explains how mere noise
suppressors came, paradoxically, to be placed in the National Firearms
Act of 1934 in the same category as machine guns and short-barreled
shotguns. Astonishingly, no facts or data were ever set forth in the
legislative record suggesting that suppressors were a crime problem.
The legislative history also demonstrates how, independently of the
NFA, wholly separate restrictions focusing on keeping suppressors out
of the hands of prohibited persons and punishing criminal misuse developed
in the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of
1968, and the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. NFA restrictions
became arguably superfluous upon enactment of these provisions.
...
Maxim’s suppressor had not been on the market long before crank extraordinaire
William T. Hornaday published his Our Vanishing Wildlife
(1913), which railed against both improved firearms and ethnic
groups such as Italians and blacks.64 Hornaday saw catastrophe looming
in the use of more accurate rifles and better binoculars, regretting
also that “in Wyoming the Maxim silencer is now being used.”65 But
he first trained his wrath on disfavored ethnic groups. Because “all
members of the lower classes of southern Europe are a dangerous menace
to our wild life,” he proposed a law to “[p]rohibit the use of firearms
in hunting by any naturalized alien from southern Europe until after a
10-years’ residence in America.”66 He denounced the blacks and “poor
white trash” of the South for hunting doves and other birds for food,
claiming “[n]o white man calling himself a sportsman ever indulges in
such low pastimes”67 and harkened to the days “when the negroes were
too poor to own guns . . . .”68

But “[t]he time came when . . . single breech-loading guns went
down to five dollars apiece. The negro had money now, and the merchants
. . . sold him the guns, a gun for every black idler, man and boy in all the South.”69 ...
...
Hornaday proceeded to rate the “degree of deadliness” in guns beginning
with “Single-shot muzzle loader” and moving up to “Repeating
rifle, with silencer,” and after that to “‘Pump’ shot-gun (6 shots)” and
then “Automatic or ‘autoloading’ shot-guns, 5 shots,” at the top.71 He
denounced as unsportsmanlike five-shot pump shotguns and self-loading
shotguns, which he wrongly called “machine guns,” averring that
“[t]he machine guns and ‘silencers’ are grossly unfair . . . .”72 He declared:
“The use of automatic and pump shotguns, and silencers, should
immediately be prohibited.”73

Hornaday gave no explanation of why silencers should have been
banned. A review of Hornaday’s book blamed “rapid transportation,
improved fire-arms, smokeless powder, the ‘Maxim silencer,’ the
‘pump gun,’ and like abominations” for the depletion of game birds and
mammals.74 It seems that modern technology was the great evil.
...

Link: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_...m_sound_mod.pdf

Mrs. Pigpen
An ambulance siren is actually designed, purposely, to be heard.

A .22 with a so-called "silencer" is still slightly louder than this noise.
In what world would that be considered stealthy?

Yah, I guess an ambulance siren is more stealthy than a rocket going off right next to your head, sure.
This is absurd beyond belief. I honestly thought the discussion would end with the HowStuffWorks link.

Silly me.
Julian
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jan 17 2017, 04:41 PM) *
An ambulance siren is actually designed, purposely, to be heard.

A .22 with a so-called "silencer" is still slightly louder than this noise.
In what world would that be considered stealthy?

Yah, I guess an ambulance siren is more stealthy than a rocket going off right next to your head, sure.
This is absurd beyond belief. I honestly thought the discussion would end with the HowStuffWorks link.

Silly me.


Not to be picky, but you were specifically quoting data on the suppressors available for a 12 gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle, unless I misread you. The article didn't mention the noise levels for quieter guns. Unless my memory is completely shot, pretty much any handgun under about .45 calibre is quieter than either a shotgun or a rifle. (It's over 20 years since I was anywhere near a discharging firearm of any kind.)

But I did chuckle at this quote from the linked article (emphasis mine):
QUOTE
This may lead to inaccurate shots, which could endanger other hunters or result in an injury to the animal.


Erm, isn't an injury to the animal kind of the point of hunting with any sort of gun, suppressed or not? (I know they mean "a non-fatal injury causing unnecessary pain and suffering", but that's not what they said.)
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(Julian @ Jan 17 2017, 01:43 PM) *
Not to be picky, but you were specifically quoting data on the suppressors available for a 12 gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle, unless I misread you. The article didn't mention the noise levels for quieter guns.


.22 is the lowest caliber as far as I am aware. Because a pistol barrel is shorter than a rifle barrel, there is less time for the energy to dissipate and i would expect a pistol to be louder (and a sawed-off shotgun would be louder than a non-sawed off one. But to be sure I found some numbers here.

.22 LR rifle is the quietest. .22LR pistol 18 decibels louder. And it goes up from there.

FWIW, per hunting and bows and guns...
The guns I hear in the AM are duck hunters. I have no idea why anyone would duck hunt, but Duck Dynasty would indicate it's a popular sport (how else could a family become wealthy from duck whistles?). Truly, when's the last time anyone invited you over for duck? They're on the golf courses in retirement communities and the retirees feed them so much they cannot even fly. Literally, sitting ducks. Their livers are probably so fatty they'd make a good faux gras but who would want to eat them? Nasty birds.

My husband hunts with a bow and arrow. That's all they allow in this area (for hunting deer) at this time. But is that really so sporting? He's up there in a tree stand, with three different types of deer calling devices, doe-in-estrus-pee sprinkled around the tree, ect. He has a little noisemaker designed to sound like bucks fighting, but not big bucks, sort of smaller sized ones so the bigger ones will approach with confidence. But it's still more sportsmanlike than raising an animal in a pen and slaughtering it. I mean, these things live the good life roaming free until they don't. And it's organic!
Google
droop224
QUOTE(Julian @ Jan 17 2017, 12:43 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jan 17 2017, 04:41 PM) *
An ambulance siren is actually designed, purposely, to be heard.

A .22 with a so-called "silencer" is still slightly louder than this noise.
In what world would that be considered stealthy?

Yah, I guess an ambulance siren is more stealthy than a rocket going off right next to your head, sure.
This is absurd beyond belief. I honestly thought the discussion would end with the HowStuffWorks link.

Silly me.


Not to be picky, but you were specifically quoting data on the suppressors available for a 12 gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle, unless I misread you. The article didn't mention the noise levels for quieter guns. Unless my memory is completely shot, pretty much any handgun under about .45 calibre is quieter than either a shotgun or a rifle. (It's over 20 years since I was anywhere near a discharging firearm of any kind.)

But I did chuckle at this quote from the linked article (emphasis mine):
QUOTE
This may lead to inaccurate shots, which could endanger other hunters or result in an injury to the animal.


Erm, isn't an injury to the animal kind of the point of hunting with any sort of gun, suppressed or not? (I know they mean "a non-fatal injury causing unnecessary pain and suffering", but that's not what they said.)



LOL Thanks Julian. Maybe it softens the blow coming from someone else.

Mrs P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3VITZ6-CcY This is a difference in sound on a video for some gun. But lets not get lost in the weeds about this gun sounds like... and that gun sounds like... . The reason why I called you out for the straw man is only because you were dismissing a "Hollywood myth" that no one is seriously proposing.

But if we look at out current situation to see the proliferation of illegal gun ownership in our country, its not a stretch of logic to say making suppressor easier to obtain, will lead to a similar result.

I'm not arguing or dismissing your facts. I'm not saying a gun with a suppressor makes no noise, I'm saying it makes significantly less noise (and has less muzzle flash) than if it did not have a suppressor attached. That what stealthier is, IMO, more silent, less visible. From there my point is... why... just why?!?!?

I think making it easier for people to kill each other in a more stealthy way is a "con"... and yes RPGs should still be illegal as well(I know it has nothing to do with the debate, just thought I would get that out there in the ether).







Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 17 2017, 07:31 PM) *
LOL Thanks Julian. Maybe it softens the blow coming from someone else.


I just posted facts. Actual facts with decibel levels for each weapon.

HowStuffWorks is not some gun-lover's shill site. It's a website that explains how....(wait for it) stuff works. All sorts of stuff.
Like the plague.
Or...How to sharpen a knife with sandpaper.

Notice how we didn't need earplugs to listen to the gun firing without the suppressor that first time? It didn't even sound that loud. Nowhere near loud enough for the need to use earplugs.
Hmm.....I know you've fired a gun before and you know that wasn't the real sound of a gun firing. It was the amount of sound the recording device can capture and the speakers can transmit.
And if it wasn't the sound of the real gun without the suppressor....how do you know the sound WITH suppressor is accurate?
droop224
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jan 17 2017, 09:27 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 17 2017, 07:31 PM) *
LOL Thanks Julian. Maybe it softens the blow coming from someone else.


I just posted facts. Actual facts with decibel levels for each weapon.

HowStuffWorks is not some gun-lover's shill site. It's a website that explains how....(wait for it) stuff works. All sorts of stuff.
Like the plague.
Or...How to sharpen a knife with sandpaper.

Notice how we didn't need earplugs to listen to the gun firing without the suppressor that first time? It didn't even sound that loud. Nowhere near loud enough for the need to use earplugs.
Hmm.....I know you've fired a gun before and you know that wasn't the real sound of a gun firing. It was the amount of sound the recording device can capture and the speakers can transmit.
And if it wasn't the sound of the real gun without the suppressor....how do you know the sound WITH suppressor is accurate?

Just so we are clear I want to reiterate I am not, absolutely not, throwing shade, dashing salt, or degrading in any way your facts...(like decibel levels).

My comment about the "gun enthusiast" making a straw man refers only to this statement:
QUOTE
So, no, it would appear that suppressors don't enable terrorists/murderers/psychos to stack up bodies in silence and stealth. That is a Hollywood myth.


Comparing gun shot to a siren does no justice, anyways, just my opinion. Imagine that you heard a siren for less than a second. Just "EH!!!!!" You could also characterize the sound as "less than the sound of a firecracker" but you chose not to.(not saying you had to)

but the gist of my discussion on this doesn't concern any of that. You are spot on about the video and that I have shot plenty of guns. As have you. So I find it hard to believe your brain didn't do what my brain did... adjust. See the key isn't the actual sound in the video in comparison to real life, but the differences in the sounds with and without a suppressor on the gun, in the same video. Would you agree that the difference in sound is significant?

Which gets me to my main point... why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a more stealthy manner... just so hunters don't have to wear freakin ear protection?





akaCG
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 17 2017, 11:14 PM) *
...
... why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a more stealthy manner ...
...

Let's rephrase the above, in order to highlight the absurdity of using the word "stealthy" in this context.

Why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a manner that produces a sound that is as stealthy as a thunderclap?

Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 18 2017, 12:14 AM) *
Comparing gun shot to a siren does no justice, anyways, just my opinion. Imagine that you heard a siren for less than a second. Just "EH!!!!!" You could also characterize the sound as "less than the sound of a firecracker" but you chose not to.(not saying you had to)


Firecrackers are loud enough to cause nerve damage to the ears. How about what the Italians call a bomba?
Which is both legal (in Italy, not here), and essentially a real bomb. Yah, that thing is hella loud.

QUOTE
but the gist of my discussion on this doesn't concern any of that. You are spot on about the video and that I have shot plenty of guns. As have you. So I find it hard to believe your brain didn't do what my brain did... adjust. See the key isn't the actual sound in the video in comparison to real life, but the differences in the sounds with and without a suppressor on the gun, in the same video. Would you agree that the difference in sound is significant?


We have inaccurate information which leads to inaccurate perspective. So I submit nothing whatsoever can be concluded here that wasn't known before.
Yes, the suppressor suppresses some of the sound...I'd expect so because that is its actual purpose.
Let's take this "louder is better" argument to an absurd extreme.
Shorter barrels are louder. Longer barrels absorb some of the sound. All barrels should be shorter.
droop224
QUOTE(akaCG @ Jan 18 2017, 05:14 AM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 17 2017, 11:14 PM) *
...
... why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a more stealthy manner ...
...

Let's rephrase the above, in order to highlight the absurdity of using the word "stealthy" in this context.

Why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a manner that produces a sound that is as stealthy as a thunderclap?
Please do. Feel free. Now lets be honest here... did you make an accurate statement? The answer is... Maybe!! Depending on the gun, the suppressor, and the ammunition. Maybe you are correct that it as loud as a thunderclap and maybe you are not and there in lies the issue.

Is it absurd to call planes stealth fighters or stealth bombers even if they are detectable? They aren't invisible or undetectable, but they are harder to detect... that's what makes them stealthy.

If you reduce the noise and muzzle flash by a significant amount, which I hope we all can agree on that fact, then you have made the weapon less detectable. Because the point being made even by you proponents is "When I shoot a gun it is SOOOOO loud that it hurts my ears and I need ear protection to not suffer hearing loss. However, with a suppressor the sound is reduced to a point where its not loud enough to need hearing protection" We don't have to proliferate suppressors through out our society and that is what will happen if we open the flood gates. We can simply use ear plug when firing a gun. We don't have to make this big strawman of "its not like Hollywood movies"... reality is rarely like Hollywood movies.

Honestly, though I'll admit this: this debate to me is like telling someone that they shouldn't put the lemon glaze icing on the Pound Cake that was made from 6 sticks of butter. Its pretty obvious that person doesn't care about their caloric intake. laugh.gif

Edited To address Mrs P

QUOTE
Firecrackers are loud enough to cause nerve damage to the ears. How about what the Italians call a bomba?
Which is both legal (in Italy, not here), and essentially a real bomb. Yah, that thing is hella loud.
And a suppressed gun makes less noise. BTW I don't miss how Italians would light off fireworks for no better reason than... its Tuesday!! But I do miss the festiveness.

QUOTE
We have inaccurate information which leads to inaccurate perspective. So I submit nothing whatsoever can be concluded here that wasn't known before.
Yes, the suppressor suppresses some of the sound...I'd expect so because that is its actual purpose.
Let's take this "louder is better" argument to an absurd extreme.
Shorter barrels are louder. Longer barrels absorb some of the sound. All barrels should be shorter.
LOL we don't have inaccurate information, you are actually hearing the difference. As opposed to trying to use decibel levels.... which is like trying to explain sight to someone by showing the red, green, and blue wave lengths.. both are very scientific, but really aren't helpful in understanding the difference from the perspective of actual hearing or seeing. When you see a video on youtube or watch a movie you aren't actually seeing in 3D but your brain compensates to give you the needed perspective to see it in a 3d manner.

And I don't think the argument is "louder is better" I don't think anyone here has proposed, "you know, we should implement gun safety by making them louder". That would be another.. you know... scarecrow. innocent.gif I think the argument is "The gun make significant amount of noise why make it less detectable, more stealthy, in an uncontrolled manner?"

But sure if you stand for making ALL guns as short barreled as possible, I would too...lol Would you want that? I doubt it.

Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 18 2017, 10:47 AM) *
LOL we don't have inaccurate information, you are actually hearing the difference. As opposed to trying to use decibel levels.... which is like trying to explain sight to someone by showing the red, green, and blue wave lengths.. both are very scientific, but really aren't helpful in understanding the difference from the perspective of actual hearing or seeing. When you see a video on youtube or watch a movie you aren't actually seeing in 3D but your brain compensates to give you the needed perspective to see it in a 3d manner.


Let's use a different example.
When you look at a picture of sunspots on the sun, the image is a dark mass surrounded by brilliant light.
That is what the "senses" tell us.
The sunspots are "cool" in comparison to the temperature of the rest of the sun so those spots look dark.
But in reality (that scientific reality) those sunspots are burning very very bright and they are 3900 degrees Celsius,
but the surrounding photosphere has a temperature approximately degrees 1500 degrees higher.

There are many, many other examples of our senses not offering "needed" perspective, but very inaccurate perspective.
Bottom line (repeated again and again) is...guns with suppressors are still loud.
There's really not much else to say. We're just arguing over whether they should be ear-bustlingly loud, or just very loud with an extra tax, or just very loud without extra tax.
akaCG
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 18 2017, 09:47 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Jan 18 2017, 05:14 AM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 17 2017, 11:14 PM) *
...
... why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a more stealthy manner ...
...

Let's rephrase the above, in order to highlight the absurdity of using the word "stealthy" in this context.

Why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a manner that produces a sound that is as stealthy as a thunderclap?
Please do. Feel free. Now lets be honest here... did you make an accurate statement? The answer is... Maybe!! Depending on the gun, the suppressor, and the ammunition. Maybe you are correct that it as loud as a thunderclap and maybe you are not and there in lies the issue.
...

There's no "Maybe" about it. It is a FACT that a nearby thunderclap produces about 120 decibels. And it is a FACT that a .22 (or a 9mm) cal semi-automatic pistol equipped with a ... cough ... "silencer" produces about ... 120 decibels.

ps:
There is, admittedly, a sure-fire (pun intended) way to reduce the impact of a 120 decibel sound to levels that can indeed be considered stealthy:

Place the tip of the index finger of each hand against the opening of the corresponding ear, press firmly against said openings, and loudly chant "La la la, I can't hear you!".


Sources:
https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/i-love-wha...r-common-sounds
http://www.dakotasilencer.com/wp-content/u...rsion_chart.pdf
droop224
QUOTE(akaCG @ Jan 18 2017, 03:56 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 18 2017, 09:47 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Jan 18 2017, 05:14 AM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 17 2017, 11:14 PM) *
...
... why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a more stealthy manner ...
...

Let's rephrase the above, in order to highlight the absurdity of using the word "stealthy" in this context.

Why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a manner that produces a sound that is as stealthy as a thunderclap?
Please do. Feel free. Now lets be honest here... did you make an accurate statement? The answer is... Maybe!! Depending on the gun, the suppressor, and the ammunition. Maybe you are correct that it as loud as a thunderclap and maybe you are not and there in lies the issue.
...

There's no "Maybe" about it. It is a FACT that a nearby thunderclap produces about 120 decibels. And it is a FACT that a .22 (or a 9mm) cal semi-automatic pistol equipped with a ... cough ... "silencer" produces about ... 120 decibels.

ps:
There is, admittedly, a sure-fire (pun intended) way to reduce the impact of a 120 decibel sound to levels that can indeed be considered stealthy:

Place the tip of the index finger of each hand against the opening of the corresponding ear, press firmly against said openings, and loudly chant "La la la, I can't hear you!".


Sources:
https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/i-love-wha...r-common-sounds
http://www.dakotasilencer.com/wp-content/u...rsion_chart.pdf


Man o' man to think like you guys is a blessing, I'm sure. Ummmm... YOUR links disprove YOUR facts. There were guns that were higher than 120 db and guns that are lower than 120 db. Come on. Read your own links.

Mrs P

QUOTE
Let's use a different example.
When you look at a picture of sunspots on the sun, the image is a dark mass surrounded by brilliant light.
That is what the "senses" tell us.
The sunspots are "cool" in comparison to the temperature of the rest of the sun so those spots look dark.
But in reality (that scientific reality) those sunspots are burning very very bright and they are 3900 degrees Celsius,
but the surrounding photosphere has a temperature approximately degrees 1500 degrees higher.
I think I understand you and if I do you are more proving my point than you intend to. I can't see warmth, just like I can't see sound. I feel warmth and I hear sound. So if I look at picture of a sun, with dark spots I can see its cooler (now this where it becomes a bad example) but since I am looking at a picture I won't feel the difference, so I have to feel the difference to get an understanding(since you decided to talk about the sun the heat is incomprehensible either way) Same with the video showing you the difference in sound. I maintain that you have a better chance of understand the difference of sound by hear the difference(even if distorted in a video when compared with real life) than you do reading decibel ratings on paper.

And saying that here is another video where you can hear the guy make the gun "Hollywood quiet" by shooting it "wet". Its just as quiet if not quieter than the paint gun he shoots interchangeably. Who knew?!?!

QUOTE
There are many, many other examples of our senses not offering "needed" perspective, but very inaccurate perspective.
Bottom line (repeated again and again) is...guns with suppressors are still loud.
There's really not much else to say. We're just arguing over whether they should be ear-bustlingly loud, or just very loud with an extra tax, or just very loud without extra tax.
You are correct, but just to remind you as I bow out.. my argument isn't how loud they are. My argument has yet to be addressed by anyone.

QUOTE
Con for society:

1) Allowing suppressors allows one person in society to kill another in a more stealthy manner

Pro for society:

1) People who CHOOSE to shoot guns without proper ear protection could suffer hearing loss, but they wouldn't if they have a suppressor.

2) Those people that live by fire ranges will get more beauty sleep

So we all have seen how the proliferation of guns has increased the ease for illegal gun ownership... and now we want to compound that issue by making it easier and cheaper (more supply) for people to get suppressors?








akaCG
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 19 2017, 12:32 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Jan 18 2017, 03:56 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 18 2017, 09:47 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Jan 18 2017, 05:14 AM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 17 2017, 11:14 PM) *
...
... why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a more stealthy manner ...
...

Let's rephrase the above, in order to highlight the absurdity of using the word "stealthy" in this context.

Why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a manner that produces a sound that is as stealthy as a thunderclap?
Please do. Feel free. Now lets be honest here... did you make an accurate statement? The answer is... Maybe!! Depending on the gun, the suppressor, and the ammunition. Maybe you are correct that it as loud as a thunderclap and maybe you are not and there in lies the issue.
...

There's no "Maybe" about it. It is a FACT that a nearby thunderclap produces about 120 decibels. And it is a FACT that a .22 (or a 9mm) cal semi-automatic pistol equipped with a ... cough ... "silencer" produces about ... 120 decibels.

ps:
There is, admittedly, a sure-fire (pun intended) way to reduce the impact of a 120 decibel sound to levels that can indeed be considered stealthy:

Place the tip of the index finger of each hand against the opening of the corresponding ear, press firmly against said openings, and loudly chant "La la la, I can't hear you!".


Sources:
https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/i-love-wha...r-common-sounds
http://www.dakotasilencer.com/wp-content/u...rsion_chart.pdf

...
... YOUR links disprove YOUR facts. ...
...

Utterly false. See below.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 19 2017, 12:32 AM) *
...
... There were guns that were higher than 120 db and guns that are lower than 120 db. ...
...

1. From my second link: Glock B17 9mm suppressed emits 126 dB. Walther P22 .22LR suppressed emits 116 dB. Average: 121 dB. Which, as my first link shows, is about the same as a ... thunderclap.

2. The only suppressor-equipped firearms in that table that emit less than 120 dB: Ruger 10/22 .22 with a regular suppressor (113 dB) and one with an integral suppressor (111 dB). Average: 112 dB. That, as my first link shows, is as "stealthy" as the sound emitted by a chainsaw or a jackhammer.

3.
The remaining item in that table that emits less than 120 dB is a ... BB gun (97 dB). Not a weapon that's particularly popular with assassins, spree killers, drive-by shooters, jealous spouses, etc., 'far as I know.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 19 2017, 12:32 AM) *
...
... My argument has yet to be addressed by anyone.

Utterly false, again. Your argument HAS been addressed, REPEATEDLY. Both "Mrs. Pigpen" and I have done so, by using FACTS in order to highlight the absurdity of the central premise upon which it rests, that being that a suppressor-equipped firearm is "more stealthy" than one without a suppressor, which is as ridiculous as describing the sound of a chainsaw as "more stealthy" than the sound of a thunderclap.

Furthermore, ...

As the table (provided, incidentally, courtesy a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services associated organization) in my first link states, "Regular exposure to sound over 100 dB of more than one minute risks permanent hearing loss.". IOW, the second point in your argument ("People who CHOOSE to shoot guns without proper ear protection could suffer hearing loss, but they wouldn't if they have a suppressor") is also invalid, when it comes to the millions of people who either regularly (or even just occasionally) go to a gun range. Unless they spend less than a minute there, or unless they and everyone else there are shooting BB guns, ear plugs and such would still be a mighty good idea.

ps:
Watching YouTube videos of guns (even ones without suppressors) being fired, however, is perfectly safe. No ear protection needed. Unless you crank the volume waaay up, that is.

AuthorMusician
Interesting: silencers/suppressors/reducers/mufflers for firearms are not only not needed because of the availability of ear cups and plugs, the firearm accessories don't work.

Ergo, it's perfectly okay to keep them regulated as is. Nobody anywhere has a need for them. They are a big waste of money, and if someone does come up with a design that does work, the only reason to use it is to hide the sound of gunshots. Very handy for shooting people in crowds and offing families in murder-suicides.

Just a few things:

Duck hunting is indeed a sport for masochists, but mallard duck with an orange glaze is very good. It's a real pain to prepare the carcass, so I never went that way. My brother did -- once.

The decibel scale is logarithmic. This means that increases and decreases are a lot more than they appear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel
lo rez
Really? They don't work anyway so go ahead and regulate them in case someone designs one that does work? Is there a rule on the books that regulates the sale of guns that shoot knives or a gun capable of semiautomatically firing a ravenous bloodthirsty tiger because what if, you guys? What if?

Also, they're already available for purchase in at least 40 states. Suppressors, I mean. My tiger-cannon is still in development and not ready to bring to market.
akaCG
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jan 19 2017, 02:23 PM) *
...
... it's perfectly okay to keep them regulated as is. Nobody anywhere has a need for them. They are a big waste of money, ...
...

From each according to what they don't need, gospodin/herr kommissar?

Reminds me of another chap with statist instincts:

"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money."
--- Stephen Chu, Obama's first U.S. Secretary of Energy, 2011


EDITED TO ADD:

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jan 19 2017, 02:23 PM) *
...
The decibel scale is logarithmic. This means that increases and decreases are a lot more than they appear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel

Quite true, but also quite irrelevant in this context. For instance, ...

It is certainly true that an unsuppressed Remington 700 LR rifle (about 165 dB) is not just 1.22 times as loud as a suppressed one (about 135 dB), but 8 times as loud. However, when it comes to the effect on the human ear, the difference between the two is that the latter entails SUBSTANTIAL immediate damage, while the latter entails "only" SOME immediate damage.
AuthorMusician
Here's a video that shows how suppressors (in firearm land, mufflers in automotive land) work:

CAUTION: Unrelated marketing stuff at end of video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pOXunRYJIw

Assuming the audio wasn't itself suppressed, the silencing effect seems pretty darn efficient.

To give an idea on where the firearm sound suppression tech is going, take a gander at this automotive muffler:

http://www.exhaustvideos.com/systems/flowmaster/

So if you think that firearms with suppressors/mufflers/silencers are still noisy enough to not be a problem, maybe think again.

Also, if you think that silencers should be called suppressors, might want to consider why an industry would change the commonly understood name. For example, why are switchblades now called automatic knives?

https://www.knifecenter.com/shop/automatic%20knives

It's an old marketing principle to change the name of a product to promote sales, especially if the old name has negative connotations.

In IT we referred to it as changing the name to protect the guilty.

Regarding the argument that firearm noise suppression is necessary to protect hearing, earplug and headset noise reduction/elimination tech is also very advanced. On the argument that firing ranges are annoying to neighbors, there are better solutions than silencing the firearms -- locate the ranges in zoned industrial areas and/or require sound insulation at indoor ranges, for examples. It'd be like how a music recording studio is built. Outdoor ranges should be far away from populated areas anyway due to richochets and stray bullets.

Which leaves the question begging, why would firearm owners want noise suppression screwed onto their gun muzzles? Could it be to commit crimes undetected, such as murder?

One more question: How does the military handle this for, say, cannon fire? Working around jet aircraft or unmuffled prop planes? I know how it's handled in foundaries, as I've worked in one running an industrial grinder. The tech was pretty good even in 1978 -- plugs and cups used together did the trick.

Come to think of it, I also wore a welder's apron and associated heavy gloves. Buttoning up the shirt was a no-brainer while standing in the spray of sparks coming off the castings. A full-face plexiglass shield on top of a stout canvas hat worked well, and steel-toed boots completed the ensamble. Also heavy canvas pants (can't forget those).

It'd be funny to see firearm enthusiasts wearing similar gear. It'd also be smart to do when shooting hunks of metal at high velocity through tubes by the use of rapidly burning powders in a type of internal-combustion engine (ICE).

I suppose if you had to shoot your way to work or to run errands, mufflng the firearms would make sense. But then there'd be bigger problems, eh?
Mrs. Pigpen
Droop and I already discussed the value of a sound demo on a Youtube video so I won't address that one again.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 25 2017, 08:27 AM) *
Regarding the argument that firearm noise suppression is necessary to protect hearing, earplug and headset noise reduction/elimination tech is also very advanced. On the argument that firing ranges are annoying to neighbors, there are better solutions than silencing the firearms -- locate the ranges in zoned industrial areas and/or require sound insulation at indoor ranges, for examples. It'd be like how a music recording studio is built. Outdoor ranges should be far away from populated areas anyway due to richochets and stray bullets.


Well, a great (though different) example that makes the point would be those small airports. People pay a lot of money to live on a small runway where they can fly their little planes around without bothering anyone. And then civilization moves in and the neighbors start complaining about noise/safety and those once nice little locations people paid a mint to live in are now worthless because the neighbors contacted their representatives and said they don't like the sound of the little planes flying out of those private airports...and besides, flying is dangerous! One of these planes might crash into their house! This in spite of the fact the little airports had been there the whole time. Small runways in private communities have been shutting down all around the country for this reason.

QUOTE
One more question: How does the military handle this for, say, cannon fire? Working around jet aircraft or unmuffled prop planes? I know how it's handled in foundaries, as I've worked in one running an industrial grinder. The tech was pretty good even in 1978 -- plugs and cups used together did the trick.


Earplugs, and a lot of service members still sustain hearing loss (if so they can claim disability, yippee!).
Environment impact assessments are made for noise pollution before a new aircraft comes to an airbase.

Just to add:
QUOTE
It'd be like how a music recording studio is built.

Musicians run a far higher risk of hearing loss than the average person so your example would seem to make the point.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 25 2017, 11:08 AM) *
Just to add:
QUOTE
It'd be like how a music recording studio is built.

Musicians run a far higher risk of hearing loss than the average person so your example would seem to make the point.

Yes, the point that hearing protection works best when it's local to the ears, i.e., earplugs and cups together in a foundry and in-ear monitors for musicians:

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-audio/f...rs&index=10

Just one of many examples for the musician. We haven't had to sacrifice our hearing levels for decades, but the earliest products were indeed simple earplugs. Good in-ear monitors cut off ambient noise like earplugs, and the volume/frequencies can be adjusted either at the mixing board/amp or via an in-line fader switch/EQ stomp box. Depends on the situation, but the old days of hearing loss are over -- unless the musician just doesn't care, choosing instead to have the open-air experience. I'm thinking metal rockers and symphonic orchestras here. Jazz types don't need to crank the electronics so much. Volume needs to be sufficient, but it is not the main thing.

I should also point out that pro musicians practice anywhere from 3-12+ hours daily, including weekends/holidays, depending on ability and motivation to develop new repertoire. If firearm enthusiasts were to do this level of practice, there'd be a lot more personal bankruptcies.

I'm not sure why firearm enthusiasts don't put the protection tech that's local to the ear over on-muzzle tech, other than there's a level of geeky-ness with suppressor/muffler tech. That and criminal activity, of course. And I can point out that just because one enthusiast uses sound suppression on her/his firearm, the protection does not do anything about enthusiasts shooting nearby who do not.

It might help the argument in favor of muzzle sound suppression to protect hearing if indoor ranges required them. Outdoor ranges too? My experience, both as a musician and a firearm user, has been that the sound impact is diluted outside due to the absence of walls, floor and ceiling. But then there's a Catch-22 if the tech is currently illegal. Still, shouldn't that be part of the argument that suppressors/mufflers should be made available to anyone wanting them?

Anyway, protect the ears (if that's the real purpose) with plugs and cups used together. It's a no-brainer and likely cheaper too. Plus the accuracy of the firearm isn't reduced, which is a rather important detail if we are truly talking safety. After all, the muzzle sound suppression tech could fail, sending wild bullets flying or even shrapnel from an exploding canister.

I'm just not buying the ear safety argument when it comes to firearm muzzle sound suppressors/mufflers. Seems pretty dang lame when more effective, safer, and cheaper tech is readily available. In effect, no law has to change in order to protect your ears. If the law does need changing, it's not for that reason.

So if not ear safety, then what? Make it easier to get away with murder? Or is it something even more stupid -- money. Yep, that tracks. The murder part comes along with it, and so the world goes 'round.
entspeak
There is no evidence to suggest that silencers are effective at preventing hearing loss. The 30 dB drop doesn't reduce the sound level enough to prevent permanent damage. Going from 140 dB to 110 dB won't prevent permanent damage. It is not a solution. And, there are other means of ear protection that actually can prevent permanent damage. Preventing hearing loss is not a valid reason to legalize silencers.
AuthorMusician
Huh, another mass shooting with 58 or so deaths and hundreds injured in Las Vegas yesterday. The responses from politicians are the usual, but more to the point of this thread, legislation that would make firearm noise suppressors easier to get may not ever make it to the House floor.

Then again it could with the current Republican-controlled federal government. If done before the 2018 elections, it could become an issue -- maybe good for Republicans, maybe good for Democrats, it's getting very difficult to call these things.

Oh, and just for grins, the bill would deregulate cop-killer bullets. Yay, making life easier for criminals.

Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 2 2017, 09:18 AM) *
There is no evidence to suggest that silencers are effective at preventing hearing loss.


Well, yes. Basic human anatomy offers evidence as hearing loss is a combination of frequency and duration as well as intensity.
The sound of a jet plane from 100 ft, for instance, will cause hearing damage but not as quickly as a bull horn in your ear.

QUOTE
The 30 dB drop doesn't reduce the sound level enough to prevent permanent damage. Going from 140 dB to 110 dB won't prevent permanent damage.


True. See above. The problem is repeated exposure to loud noise. Even with hearing protection this can lead to hearing loss.
Foam plugs for example offer between 25-31 dB levels of hearing protection. Still a zone for hearing loss.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 3 2017, 08:17 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 2 2017, 09:18 AM) *
There is no evidence to suggest that silencers are effective at preventing hearing loss.

QUOTE
The 30 dB drop doesn't reduce the sound level enough to prevent permanent damage. Going from 140 dB to 110 dB won't prevent permanent damage.


True. See above. The problem is repeated exposure to loud noise. Even with hearing protection this can lead to hearing loss.
Foam plugs for example offer between 25-31 dB levels of hearing protection. Still a zone for hearing loss.

This is exactly why I used both foam plugs (high tech for the time) and ear cups while working in a foundry, where the noise was indeed constantly LOUDER THAN HELL and the old timers quite deaf.

Compared to firearm noise, it was like the difference between a thunder clap and a hurricane. Yet after several months of exposure for 45-50 hours per week, my ears came out just fine. A subsequent employer required a hearing test as part of the employment requirements, and the tester told me I could hear a pin drop before it hit the floor.

So if firearm enthusiasts are really concerned about losing their hearing, they should use plugs and cups together. And if the firearm industry really gave a hoot about their customers, well, they'd be doing things a lot differently. For instance, put R&D money into noise-canceling headphone/earbud tech rather than into lobbying Congress to make life easier for criminals.

But noooo, it's gotta be tech on the weapon so that mass shooters, formerly law-abiding citizens, can kill/wound a lot more people before being discovered. I see liquid-cooled silencers, maybe even cryogenic, in our future and death tolls exceeding those from the 9/11 attacks.

And we do it to ourselves.

BTW, suppressor isn't a very good term for the on-gun tech, as it doesn't have a strong connection to sound. Silencer is better, and muffler is right on the mark. I guess to firearm customers, muffler is too wimpy? Offends their snowflake sensibilities? The poor dears.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 3 2017, 11:28 AM) *
BTW, suppressor isn't a very good term for the on-gun tech, as it doesn't have a strong connection to sound. Silencer is better,


You believe "silence" is the correct term for a sound loud enough to cause ear damage. Okay.

QUOTE
and muffler is right on the mark. I guess to firearm customers, muffler is too wimpy? Offends their snowflake sensibilities? The poor dears.


I'm sure it's fine to call it a muffler.
entspeak
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 3 2017, 07:17 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 2 2017, 09:18 AM) *
There is no evidence to suggest that silencers are effective at preventing hearing loss.


Well, yes. Basic human anatomy offers evidence as hearing loss is a combination of frequency and duration as well as intensity.
The sound of a jet plane from 100 ft, for instance, will cause hearing damage but not as quickly as a bull horn in your ear.

QUOTE
The 30 dB drop doesn't reduce the sound level enough to prevent permanent damage. Going from 140 dB to 110 dB won't prevent permanent damage.


True. See above. The problem is repeated exposure to loud noise. Even with hearing protection this can lead to hearing loss.
Foam plugs for example offer between 25-31 dB levels of hearing protection. Still a zone for hearing loss.


As I said, protecting one's hearing is not a valid reason to legalize suppressors. The upside (of which there is little) does not outweigh the downside. There are other methods of hearing protection that provide just as much protection and do not have the ability to make it much more difficult to identify where shots are coming from at distance. At the distance from the hotel to the concert, one wonders how many more may have been killed and how much longer his spree would have gone on had Paddock used a suppressor and subsonic rounds.

Although, currently, I'm wondering about whether or not there should be legislation banning bump stocks. I'm sure Nevada will be debating it's lax gun control laws with regard to magazines and bump stocks.
Mrs. Pigpen

QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 3 2017, 05:37 PM) *
As I said, protecting one's hearing is not a valid reason to legalize suppressors. The upside (of which there is little) does not outweigh the downside. There are other methods of hearing protection that provide just as much protection and do not have the ability to make it much more difficult to identify where shots are coming from at distance. At the distance from the hotel to the concert, one wonders how many more may have been killed and how much longer his spree would have gone on had Paddock used a suppressor and subsonic rounds.


Well, suppressors are currently legal and they've been legal for quite while.
So I'm surprised they aren't utilized more in crimes if the benefit is so (ostensibly) great for this task.

QUOTE
Although, currently, I'm wondering about whether or not there should be legislation banning bump stocks. I'm sure Nevada will be debating it's lax gun control laws with regard to magazines and bump stocks.


Automatic weapons are illegal, but a person can legally buy a component to make a semi-auto into an auto. Doesn't really seem like a good idea. That's an objection that makes a lot more sense to me than objections to suppressors.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 3 2017, 10:22 PM) *
Automatic weapons are illegal, but a person can legally buy a component to make a semi-auto into an auto. Doesn't really seem like a good idea. That's an objection that makes a lot more sense to me than objections to suppressors.

I'm sure it's fine to attempt making sense out of this issue.

However, there really are no valid arguments in favor of liberalizing firearm noise muffler laws. Plugs and cups do a better job of protecting ears and are useless for criminals.

BTW, automatic firearms are as legal as firearm mufflers in that the buyer has to meet certain criteria. We can do a lot better than just letting anyone buy anything firearm.

Maybe now that white country music fans were the breathing targets, we will do better. Funny (not ha-ha) how that works. Maybe experimentations with liberalizing firearm laws have reached their end. Heh, the conservative version of social engineering.
entspeak
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 3 2017, 09:22 PM) *
QUOTE
Although, currently, I'm wondering about whether or not there should be legislation banning bump stocks. I'm sure Nevada will be debating it's lax gun control laws with regard to magazines and bump stocks.


Automatic weapons are illegal, but a person can legally buy a component to make a semi-auto into an auto. Doesn't really seem like a good idea. That's an objection that makes a lot more sense to me than objections to suppressors.

Well, they are two different things. Bump stocks are a no-brainer. I understand how suppressors serve some legal purpose, the question is whether the upsides of suppressors outweigh the downsides - in my opinion, they don't. If Paddock had suppressors, it would've taken authorities much longer than 10 minutes to find him (10 minutes in which 59 people died and 527 were critically injured by 1 man 500 yards away and over 100 yards above ground)... many, many more would likely be dead and injured.
LoneWisdom
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 4 2017, 12:49 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 3 2017, 09:22 PM) *
QUOTE
Although, currently, I'm wondering about whether or not there should be legislation banning bump stocks. I'm sure Nevada will be debating it's lax gun control laws with regard to magazines and bump stocks.


Automatic weapons are illegal, but a person can legally buy a component to make a semi-auto into an auto. Doesn't really seem like a good idea. That's an objection that makes a lot more sense to me than objections to suppressors.

Well, they are two different things. Bump stocks are a no-brainer. I understand how suppressors serve some legal purpose, the question is whether the upsides of suppressors outweigh the downsides - in my opinion, they don't. If Paddock had suppressors, it would've taken authorities much longer than 10 minutes to find him (10 minutes in which 59 people died and 527 were critically injured by 1 man 500 yards away and over 100 yards above ground)... many, many more would likely be dead and injured.


Sorry Hillary Clinton, a suppressor would not have helped Stephen Paddock hurt more people in Las Vegas

A fire alarm from gun smoke led police to the Las Vegas shooter’s room, retired officer says


entspeak
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 4 2017, 01:03 PM) *

There is a flaw in this logic. Yes, the smoke alarms helped them find the room without a floor by floor search, but they knew it was coming from the hotel because... they could eventually pinpoint where the shots were coming from. At 500 yds, with a silencer and subsonic rounds, it would've been more difficult to know exactly which direction the shots were coming from - which building. Yes, the echoes create confusion, but with a suppressor and subsonic rounds, there would'nt have even been echoes... at that distance, you'd only hear the thud of the impact. They would've found him eventually, but not as fast as they did.

(I can't read the Examiner link for long because of a massive pop-up that I can't close on my phone.)
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 4 2017, 02:03 PM) *

This observation isn't relevant. The best use for firearm mufflers would be short-range handgun murders, such as a father offing his children and spouse while not alerting neighbors that anything is wrong. Usually it's the father but sometimes the mother. Less noise would mean more getaway time.

I suppose distance shooters wouldn't use them due to the decrease in accuracy that mufflers introduce. And in the particular case of Las Vegas, the shooter was obviously concerned about overheated barrels, and a muffler would have just made that worse due to retained heat in the muffler canister and barrel.

Perhaps the school shooters would like to use them? Not sure that psychological type would much care about getting away with it. The Vegas shooter maybe planned to escape, which would have been awfully short due to the records he left behind and the act of knocking out the hotel window. Law enforcement would know immediately who had occupied that room.

I do agree that bump stocks and any other accessory meant to increase the rate of firing should be outlawed. After all, they are not arms protected by any amendment. They are accessories meant to defeat the law. Designers and manufacturers should be subject to stiff penalties because we all know what they're trying to do, which is to increase the deadliness of firearms. Those who obtain the contraband via black markets should also face stiff penalties. Keep it all monetary, no jail time, but make it hurt a lot.

I see where the NRA has hauled out one of its classic arguments -- first we need to ban hands and feet before firearms, thereby drawing a false equality. But hey. let's go along with that. If hands and feet are as deadly as firearms, we can ban firearms altogether. People would then defend themselves using the weapons God gave them.

It is of course a bad conclusion drawn from worse logic. Firearms are killing machines; hands and feet are not nearly as efficient.
LoneWisdom
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 5 2017, 01:08 PM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 4 2017, 01:03 PM) *

There is a flaw in this logic. Yes, the smoke alarms helped them find the room without a floor by floor search, but they knew it was coming from the hotel because... they could eventually pinpoint where the shots were coming from. At 500 yds, with a silencer and subsonic rounds, it would've been more difficult to know exactly which direction the shots were coming from - which building. Yes, the echoes create confusion, but with a suppressor and subsonic rounds, there would'nt have even been echoes... at that distance, you'd only hear the thud of the impact. They would've found him eventually, but not as fast as they did.

(I can't read the Examiner link for long because of a massive pop-up that I can't close on my phone.)


The following is not entirely confirmed, but logical speculation. Timeline shows Paddock stopped firing (had been firing on the concert crowd for about 10 minutes) when smoke alarms went off and the security guard showed up to investigate. Apparently Paddock saw the guard on his cameras and fired about 200 rounds into the hallway. Even after being shot, guard called it in and helped clear other guests from the floor. Since Paddock never fired on the concert crowd again, I expect he killed himself shortly after SWAT arrived. I don't think the crowd knew where the shots were coming from.

I suspect that any belief that suppressors and subsonic rounds being silent are Hollywood fantasy, somewhat supported by the first article. I sincerely doubt that an expectation of silence would have been a factor. Using my lifetime experience with rifles, shotguns, handguns, and including an M16 in the Air Force, as well as firing 5.56 rounds with an AR15 at a gun range, I expect Paddock knew he couldn't fire on the crowd silently. Whether he would have been aware of the echo causing source confusion or that he'd fill the room with smoke is unknown. Based on the number of weapons he had, I expect he thought he had more time.

Edited to add:

Outlawing silencers and bump stocks will have the same effect as putting up signs identifying a hotel, school, or theater as a gun free zone. People seem to be unaware that firearms have been around for about a thousand years and that any novice machine shop operator could probably figure out how to manufacture them as well as their accessories. In fact, the failures of prohibition and the war on drugs should indicate the effectiveness of any such law. Once the mechanical knowledge is out, it can usually be duplicated. Creating a black market for a product just increases the profitability and participating. Could it be that you're thinking of a different human race than the one on Earth?
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 5 2017, 02:58 PM) *
Outlawing silencers . . .

They are already outlawed for those without the prerequisites. The proposed law in question would make it easier for anyone to buy them.
LoneWisdom
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 5 2017, 03:51 PM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 5 2017, 02:58 PM) *
Outlawing silencers . . .

They are already outlawed for those without the prerequisites. The proposed law in question would make it easier for anyone to buy them.



So...

The Pros and Cons of Subsonic Cartridges

QUOTE
Quietest of all is to use a silencer in tandem with subsonic ammunition, which can reduce the sound of gunfire to a whimper in the rain. But if all we wanted was quiet, we wouldn’t pull the trigger at all.


QUOTE
Since energy is the product of mass times velocity squared, a slower bullet has exponentially less energy than a faster one of the same weight. Take your average 55-grain .223 Rem. bullet. At 3250 fps, it produces 1,280 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle. But if you reduce the velocity to a subsonic 1100 fps, it produces only 150 foot-pounds. In other words, it turns a .223 Rem. into a .22 LR—the difference between a load for deer and a load for prairie dogs.


Just another inane debate.




Regulated doesn't equal outlawed.
LoneWisdom
Why are gun silencers (suppressers) so strictly regulated?

QUOTE
First ... Congress passed a law requiring a $200 "tax stamp" for all regulated weapons -- machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and suppressors, among other devices. The law enabled the very rich to still have access to these weapons, but kept them out of the hands of average Americans.

Congress utilized a masterful subterfuge: They weren't regulating firearms, they were regulating interstate trade, which was specifically authorized by the Constitution. So rather than denying access to the arms with a special permit, which would have been unconstitutional, they denied access to the arms by taxing them outrageously.

So why are they still specially regulated? That's reason #2: The movies. Suppressors have gained such an aura as an assassin's tool that it's doubtful they will ever be dropped from special regulation.



Looms
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 2 2017, 04:43 PM) *
Huh, another mass shooting with 58 or so deaths and hundreds injured in Las Vegas yesterday. The responses from politicians are the usual, but more to the point of this thread, legislation that would make firearm noise suppressors easier to get may not ever make it to the House floor.

Then again it could with the current Republican-controlled federal government. If done before the 2018 elections, it could become an issue -- maybe good for Republicans, maybe good for Democrats, it's getting very difficult to call these things.

Oh, and just for grins, the bill would deregulate cop-killer bullets. Yay, making life easier for criminals.


But aren't all cops evil racist white supremacists? Or Nazis, even? Why are you denying the innocent angels in places like Baltimore and Chicago a chance to defend themselves? YOU MONSTER!
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Looms @ Nov 10 2017, 09:37 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 2 2017, 04:43 PM) *
Huh, another mass shooting with 58 or so deaths and hundreds injured in Las Vegas yesterday. The responses from politicians are the usual, but more to the point of this thread, legislation that would make firearm noise suppressors easier to get may not ever make it to the House floor.

Then again it could with the current Republican-controlled federal government. If done before the 2018 elections, it could become an issue -- maybe good for Republicans, maybe good for Democrats, it's , getting very difficult to call these things.

Oh, and just for grins, the bill would deregulate cop-killer bullets. Yay, making life easier for criminals.


But aren't all cops evil racist white supremacists? Or Nazis, even? Why are you denying the innocent angels in places like Baltimore and Chicago a chance to defend themselves? YOU MONSTER!

No, no, and I'm not.

But I do get your attempt at humor. With a little bit more talent, maybe you could produce right-wing political cartoons. However, consider that a tide is turning, meaning that liberal-bashing won't be selling all that well. Part of the reason is that the audience is shrinking (generational arrivals/departures, changing minds), and the other part is that President Trump is accelerating the process.

Heh, while people were worrying about the government confiscating their weapons, Trump slithered into office and poses an actual threat to our nation. Oh yeah, and then there's Texas.

So what happens to liberal-bashing humor under these conditions? Let's just say a fire hose that has lost pressure is more turgid.

Anyway, there's still no logical argument for liberalizing the restrictions on firearm noise suppressors, aka, silencers, aka (by me) firearm mufflers. And as you, I see no reason for people to have cop-killer bullets. Well, other than criminals. Maybe SWAT? You know, since criminals can also buy body armor on sale at Outdoor Man. No questions asked, no liability allowed.
Bikerdad
Why should firearm silencers be legalized for the general public?
Because the restrictions on suppressors infringe on the right to keep and bear arms AND the restrictions increase the risk of personal injury when exercising one's right of self defense.

Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?
Hollywood. Movies in the '20s and '30s represented suppressors as silencers that made the shot so quiet it couldn't be heard in the next room, used by sneaky assassins. The reality is the average suppressor reduces the sound of the shot by about 30db, which is about the same as earplugs.

Why might you buy a firearm silencer if they're legalized?
If I had firearms, I would by suppressors for them order to protect my hearing and the hearing of others. In the event of having a firearm and needing to use it in self defense, it's highly unlikely that whatever challenge has presented the need to use the firearm isn't going to give me the time to find and insert hearing protection.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jul 13 2018, 12:55 AM) *
If I had firearms, I would by suppressors for them order to protect my hearing and the hearing of others. In the event of having a firearm and needing to use it in self defense, it's highly unlikely that whatever challenge has presented the need to use the firearm isn't going to give me the time to find and insert hearing protection.


My spouse retired (ceremony was yesterday, change of command today woohoo!) with some disability related to tinnitus and hearing loss (related most likely to jet engines and firearms).
Even with ear protection, a person can sustain hearing loss (especially in an indoor range).
Hearing protection plus a suppressor would be optimal.
net2007
Why should firearm silencers be legalized for the general public?

I question that they should be. I figure that in this case, the cons of legalization outweigh the pros. Some reasonable explanations can be given for legalizing them, Bikerdad said to protect his hearing and that of others. While there are other ways to protect hearing, I suppose it would make it more convenient not to have to put something like ear-plugs in if you're still wanting to hear other things well. Perhaps hunters could use them to not scare away an animal if they're hunting and miss their shot. In the scenario that two or more intruders are in your house and are trying to kill you, it could be argued that with a silencer you'd have a better chance of picking them off one by one without alerting the others.

So for the sake of argument the pro-gun rights diehards could make some points worth hearing but I figure that all of that is outweighed by the fact that the ones who don't want to be heard shooting a gun the most are often those who are doing something wrong. They have a lot to lose by getting caught shooting a gun, especially if they're about to commit murder.

From my understanding, many pro-gun rights advocates are more worried in cases like this because they don't think there will be an end to the chipping away of gun rights by the Democrats. They think that some Democrats are lying when they say they don't want to take it to the point of taking away all guns, or that the Democrats will evolve to propose ever stricter rules and regulations. To their credit, there is reason to have that concern. Here are three good reasons (from my Quora writings) which demonstrate that we should be skeptical that the Democrats won't take gun restrictions to an extreme, or perhaps try to eventually ban firearms altogether...

1.
Democrats have been evolving for a while, you can go back to the early 90's and see that the Democrats used to not view restricting guns as central to their policymaking. Restricting guns became central to the Democrats with the passing of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. which passed in the Clinton Administration and they've focused on that issue more ever since, especially today.

2.
More recently than that, the Democrats didn't push for a single-payer healthcare system, or government funded healthcare at all, at least not near as much as they do now. Most of the phasing into that took place under the Obama administration and now, pushing taxpayer funded healthcare even further, is picking up more momentum with the Bernie Sanders wave within the Democratic party.

3.
Very recently Democrats said they supported a border wall and were more verbal when criticizing immigrants who came into the country and broke multiple laws. Now that Trump is in office they don't support a border wall and much of the time they can't even criticize murderers if they came here illegally. They're so afraid to offend law-abiding immigrants that their language and policies have become incredibly sensitive and lenient, (I can show quotes from a few years back to demonstrate if you wish).

I happen to agree with some of the gun restrictions that the Democrats propose but feel that it should be kept within reason as well, the doubt that they will comes from the realization that the Dems are embracing a far left European model for our government. There are conservatives in nations like Britain, but as a whole Britain has gotten to the point where they're now pushing knife bans...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...n-a8293686.html

Apparently, the gun restrictions, bans, and gun buyback program within Britain increased the rate of knife stabbings so now they're targeting knives. To paraphrase, pro-guns rights advocates often argue that if you ban guns, that criminals will come at you with knives, and if you ban knives they'll come at you with something else. A knife ban, if you think about it, is a worse idea than a gun ban given you can make a shank out of about anything. All of this gives credibility to the idea that it's people more than guns which is the primary problem. That's an argument that's very difficult if not impossible to counter, so it's usually something the Dems sidestep in debates.

Having said that, the right often tries to hold onto certain guns and accessories that have little practical purpose, like bump stocks. So in short, I'm with the Democrats on some of the policies they've proposed, but don't trust everyone in the party not to get more extreme on the issue because the extreme positions of yesterday keep becoming the mainstream positions of today.

Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?

I'm not sure, but it's not something I'm losing sleep over. I wouldn't doubt if its for a similar reason I mentioned above, silencers are the perfect accessory for those who don't want to be heard, that sounds harmless enough until you consider that criminals and those who want to commit a mass murder are often the ones who have the most to lose by being heard. This, in my opinion, is similar to the concept of invisibility. Invisibility would be the perfect superpower or technological achievement for those who are either a villain in a science fiction film, or a criminal, assuming we ever achieve that technologically. Perhaps apart from some military and police force applications, invisibility is a perfect ability for those who want to do bad things. For example, stealing, guys who may want to peep on the neighbor next door, those who want to commit a murder, a rape, or perhaps taking pranking way too far, etc. etc.

Why might you buy a firearm silencer if they're legalized?

I can't think of a reason, as of now I've fired a couple guns but haven't owned anything apart from a pellet rifle. Even if I owned a gun, at best a silencer would serve as a curious gadget for me until I got bored with it. My overall position on guns is that while they're not important to me personally, I can sympathize with those who want to keep most legal guns that are available now, for hunting or defense. As a moderate conservative, I feel we need a balanced government. Not a government so small that taxes, laws, and regulations are reduced to the point that it has negative consequences, but I think the Democrats often get carried away. Too much government discourages the public and can also have negative consequences.

California is a prime example of government expanding to the point that it has severe consequences....

QUOTE
"Between 2007 and 2016, some 5 million people moved in to California and 6 million people moved out to other states, a net loss of about 1 million residents"


QUOTE
"Out of all 50 states, the state of California has been ranked as the worst state for business for 12 years in a row."

QUOTE
"California has the highest state income tax rates in the entire nation"

QUOTE
"they are talking about going to a single-payer health care system for the entire state that would cost California taxpayers $400 billion a year."
(This would compound the problem of taxes that are already high enough to scare away millions of residents)
QUOTE
"California is one of the most litigious states in the entire nation. According to the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, the "lawsuit climate" in California is ranked 47th out of all 50 states."

QUOTE
"Due to a lack of affordable housing, rents have soared to wild extremes in San Francisco, where one poor engineer was actually paying $1,400 a month to live in a closet."


http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinio...-htmlstory.html
https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/63520-...by-the-millions

There were other reasons listed like the ever-increasing number of homeless people in the state and illegal immigration having an impact, the quotes I have above are more related to an inflated government with too much power. They say, as goes California, so goes the nation, I think that's been beneficial at times but they've gone too far. Their model for governing is failing and the state is in a lot of trouble. Personally, I don't want to live in a country where either side dominates because both sides have good ideas but taking gun restrictions to the point that Europe has is one of the bad ideas that some modern liberals have, in my opinion. To me, politics are about balance, as with life.

Edited to correct spelling and mention that points 1 -3 in my reply were quoted from my writings at Quora.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jul 15 2018, 11:07 PM) *
Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?
I'm not sure, but it's not something I'm losing sleep over.


That's good because they aren't illegal anyway (as has been mentioned in this thread).

QUOTE
I wouldn't doubt if its for a similar reason I mentioned above, silencers are the perfect accessory for those who don't want to be heard, that sounds harmless enough until you consider that criminals and those who want to commit a mass murder are often the ones who have the most to lose by being heard. This, in my opinion, is similar to the concept of invisibility. Invisibility would be the perfect superpower or technological achievement for those who are either a villain in a science fiction film, or a criminal, assuming we ever achieve that technologically.


It can't be likened to invisibility because a suppressor isn't silent. It's actually pretty damned loud. (as has been mentioned in this thread)

net2007
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE
It can't be likened to invisibility because a suppressor isn't silent. It's actually pretty damned loud. (as has been mentioned in this thread)


The analogy admittingly isn't perfect but the amount of noise made depends on what's being "suppressed", with some guns being less noticeable than others. The goal is to be less likely to be heard, apart from some of the side benefits mentioned previously. To me, this sounds like the suppressor made a significant difference in the noise level of the 9mm pistol.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZU5TGljAmw

Even though it can still be heard, it will alert fewer people so it would still be true that this type of device can benefit criminals immensely as could invisibility, or let's just say partial invisibility to meet you halfway and be fair. On your end do you see the risk involved with these devices? Edited to add: A lot of things have risk which I believe should remain legal and on firearms, generally speaking, I'm not the strictest of individuals you'll run into. In this case, I think there's a debate to be had but believe most of what's legal should stay legal as well.

QUOTE
That's good because they aren't illegal anyway (as has been mentioned in this thread).


Or to be completely accurate it depends on the state right?

They're illegal in some states and regulated in states where they are legal, from my understanding....

https://www.silencershop.com/where-are-they-legal

Perhaps AuthorMusician lives in one of the states where they've been made illegal, just a thought.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jul 16 2018, 11:21 PM) *
The analogy admittingly isn't perfect but the amount of noise made depends on what's being "suppressed", with some guns being less noticeable than others. The goal is to be less likely to be heard, apart from some of the side benefits mentioned previously. To me, this sounds like the suppressor made a significant difference in the noise level of the 9mm pistol.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZU5TGljAmw


Droop and I had this conversation in this thread already.
Starting about here: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...amp;p=100034499

QUOTE
That's good because they aren't illegal anyway (as has been mentioned in this thread).

Or to be completely accurate it depends on the state right?

They're illegal in some states and regulated in states where they are legal, from my understanding....

https://www.silencershop.com/where-are-they-legal

Perhaps AuthorMusician lives in one of the states where they've been made illegal, just a thought.


The article referenced Tennessee. As you can see from the link you just provided, suppressors aren't banned in Tennessee. The article was in error.
(as has been mentioned) The proposed bill wasn't an attempt to lift a ban, it was an attempt to lift a tax.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.